Again from the site that must be immediately shut down, according to the douchebag lite Zionists (who appear to be unaware of the change in the general tone of the world), as it is so 'anti-Semitic': "Behind Israel’s Hysterical Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal":

"The second reason for the lobby’s relentless campaign to sabotage the
nuclear agreement is that, while the agreement obviously represents a
fantastic victory for Israel, it nonetheless falls short of what the
lobby projected and fought for, that is, devastating regime change by
military means, similar to what was done to Iraq and Libya.
This is no conspiracy theory or idle speculation. There is
well-documented, undeniable evidence that the lobby, as a major pillar
of the neoconservative forces in the US and elsewhere, set out as early
as the late 1980s and early as 1990s to “deconstruct” and reshape the
Middle East in the image of radical Zionist champions of building
“greater Israel” in the region, extending from Jordan River to
Mediterranean coasts.
Indeed, radical Zionists’ plans to balkanize and re-mold the Middle
East are as old as the state of Israel itself. Those plans were actually
among the essential designs of Israel’s founding fathers to
build a Jewish state in Palestine. David Ben Gurien, one of the Key
founders of the state of Israel, for example, stated unabashedly that
land grabbing, expulsion of non-Jewish natives from their land/homes and
territorial expansion is best achieved through launching wars of choice
and creating social chaos, which he called “revolutionary” times or
circumstances. “What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
what is possible in such great hours is not carried out—a whole world is
lost” [1].
While the plans to foment war and create social convulsion in pursuit
of “greater Israel” thus began with the very creation of the state of
Israel, systematic implementation of such plans, and the concomitant
agenda of changing “unfriendly” regimes in the region, began in earnest
in the early 1990s—that is, in the immediate aftermath of the collapse
of the Soviet Union.
As long as the Soviet Union existed as a balancing superpower
vis-à-vis the United States, US policy makers in the Middle East were
somewhat constrained in their accommodations of territorial ambitions of
hardline Zionism. That restraint was largely due to the fact that at
the time the regimes that ruled Iraq, Syria and Libya were allies of the
Soviet Union. That alliance, and indeed the broader counter-balancing
power of Soviet bloc countries, served as a leash on the expansionist
designs of Israel and the US accommodations of those designs. The demise
of the Soviet Union removed that countervailing force.
The demise of the Soviet Union also served as a boon for Israel for
yet another reason: it created an opportunity for a closer alliance
between Israel and the militaristic faction of the US ruling
elites—elites whose interests are vested largely in the
military-industrial-security-intelligence complex, that is, in military
capital, or war dividends.
Since the rationale for the large and growing military apparatus
during the Cold War years was the “threat of communism,” US citizens
celebrated the collapse of the Berlin Wall as the end of militarism and
the dawn of “peace dividends.”
But while the majority of the US citizens celebrated the prospects of
what appeared to be imminent “peace dividends,” the powerful interests
vested in the expansion of military-industrial-security-intelligence
spending felt threatened. Not surprisingly, these influential forces
moved swiftly to safeguard their interests in the face of the “threat of
peace.”
To stifle the voices that demanded peace dividends, beneficiaries of
war and militarism began to methodically redefine the post-Cold War
“sources of threat” in the broader framework of the new multi-polar
world, which purportedly goes way beyond the traditional “Soviet threat”
of the bipolar world of the Cold War era. Instead of the “communist
threat” of the Soviet era, the “menace” of “rogue states,” of radical
Islam and of “global terrorism” would have to do as new enemies.
Just as the beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace
and stability inimical to their interests, so too the militant Zionist
proponents of “greater Israel” perceive peace between Israel and its
Palestinian/Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control
over the “promised land.” The reason for this fear of peace is that,
according to a number of the United Nations’ resolutions, peace would
mean Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders. But because proponents of
“greater Israel” are unwilling to withdraw from the occupied
territories, they are therefore afraid of peace—hence, their continued
attempts at sabotaging peace efforts and/or negotiations.
Because the interests of the beneficiaries of war dividends and those
of radical Zionism tend to converge over fomenting war and political
convulsion in the Middle East, an ominously potent alliance has been
forged between them—ominous, because the mighty US war machine is now
supplemented by the almost unrivaled public relations capabilities of
the hardline pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
The alliance between these two militaristic forces is largely
unofficial and de facto; it is subtlely forged through an elaborate
network of powerful neoconservative think tanks such as The American
Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, America
Israel Public Affairs Committee, Middle East Media Research Institute,
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National
Institute for Public Policy, Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs, and Center for Security Policy.
In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, these militaristic think
tanks and their hawkish neoconservative operatives published a number of
policy papers that clearly and forcefully advocated plans for border
change, demographic change and regime change in the Middle East.
Although the plan to change “unfriendly” regimes and balkanize the
region was to begin with the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, as the
“weakest link,” the ultimate goal was (and still is) regime change in
Iran."

Again from the site that must be immediately shut down, according to the douchebag lite Zionists (who appear to be unaware of the change in the general tone of the world), as it is so 'anti-Semitic': "Behind Israel’s Hysterical Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal":

"The second reason for the lobby’s relentless campaign to sabotage the
nuclear agreement is that, while the agreement obviously represents a
fantastic victory for Israel, it nonetheless falls short of what the
lobby projected and fought for, that is, devastating regime change by
military means, similar to what was done to Iraq and Libya.
This is no conspiracy theory or idle speculation. There is
well-documented, undeniable evidence that the lobby, as a major pillar
of the neoconservative forces in the US and elsewhere, set out as early
as the late 1980s and early as 1990s to “deconstruct” and reshape the
Middle East in the image of radical Zionist champions of building
“greater Israel” in the region, extending from Jordan River to
Mediterranean coasts.
Indeed, radical Zionists’ plans to balkanize and re-mold the Middle
East are as old as the state of Israel itself. Those plans were actually
among the essential designs of Israel’s founding fathers to
build a Jewish state in Palestine. David Ben Gurien, one of the Key
founders of the state of Israel, for example, stated unabashedly that
land grabbing, expulsion of non-Jewish natives from their land/homes and
territorial expansion is best achieved through launching wars of choice
and creating social chaos, which he called “revolutionary” times or
circumstances. “What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
what is possible in such great hours is not carried out—a whole world is
lost” [1].
While the plans to foment war and create social convulsion in pursuit
of “greater Israel” thus began with the very creation of the state of
Israel, systematic implementation of such plans, and the concomitant
agenda of changing “unfriendly” regimes in the region, began in earnest
in the early 1990s—that is, in the immediate aftermath of the collapse
of the Soviet Union.
As long as the Soviet Union existed as a balancing superpower
vis-à-vis the United States, US policy makers in the Middle East were
somewhat constrained in their accommodations of territorial ambitions of
hardline Zionism. That restraint was largely due to the fact that at
the time the regimes that ruled Iraq, Syria and Libya were allies of the
Soviet Union. That alliance, and indeed the broader counter-balancing
power of Soviet bloc countries, served as a leash on the expansionist
designs of Israel and the US accommodations of those designs. The demise
of the Soviet Union removed that countervailing force.
The demise of the Soviet Union also served as a boon for Israel for
yet another reason: it created an opportunity for a closer alliance
between Israel and the militaristic faction of the US ruling
elites—elites whose interests are vested largely in the
military-industrial-security-intelligence complex, that is, in military
capital, or war dividends.
Since the rationale for the large and growing military apparatus
during the Cold War years was the “threat of communism,” US citizens
celebrated the collapse of the Berlin Wall as the end of militarism and
the dawn of “peace dividends.”
But while the majority of the US citizens celebrated the prospects of
what appeared to be imminent “peace dividends,” the powerful interests
vested in the expansion of military-industrial-security-intelligence
spending felt threatened. Not surprisingly, these influential forces
moved swiftly to safeguard their interests in the face of the “threat of
peace.”
To stifle the voices that demanded peace dividends, beneficiaries of
war and militarism began to methodically redefine the post-Cold War
“sources of threat” in the broader framework of the new multi-polar
world, which purportedly goes way beyond the traditional “Soviet threat”
of the bipolar world of the Cold War era. Instead of the “communist
threat” of the Soviet era, the “menace” of “rogue states,” of radical
Islam and of “global terrorism” would have to do as new enemies.
Just as the beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace
and stability inimical to their interests, so too the militant Zionist
proponents of “greater Israel” perceive peace between Israel and its
Palestinian/Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control
over the “promised land.” The reason for this fear of peace is that,
according to a number of the United Nations’ resolutions, peace would
mean Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders. But because proponents of
“greater Israel” are unwilling to withdraw from the occupied
territories, they are therefore afraid of peace—hence, their continued
attempts at sabotaging peace efforts and/or negotiations.
Because the interests of the beneficiaries of war dividends and those
of radical Zionism tend to converge over fomenting war and political
convulsion in the Middle East, an ominously potent alliance has been
forged between them—ominous, because the mighty US war machine is now
supplemented by the almost unrivaled public relations capabilities of
the hardline pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
The alliance between these two militaristic forces is largely
unofficial and de facto; it is subtlely forged through an elaborate
network of powerful neoconservative think tanks such as The American
Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, America
Israel Public Affairs Committee, Middle East Media Research Institute,
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National
Institute for Public Policy, Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs, and Center for Security Policy.
In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, these militaristic think
tanks and their hawkish neoconservative operatives published a number of
policy papers that clearly and forcefully advocated plans for border
change, demographic change and regime change in the Middle East.
Although the plan to change “unfriendly” regimes and balkanize the
region was to begin with the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, as the
“weakest link,” the ultimate goal was (and still is) regime change in
Iran."